For the record: Archbishop Chaput on Catholic pols and voters

The place to start would be, does our voting for someone make us responsible for what that person does as a legislator or as a judge? And the answer is yes, because we are in some ways materially -- we use the word 'materially' -- cooperating in that person's activity because we've given [him or her] the platform to be elected. Now, if the person does something wrong, are we responsible for that? Well, if we didn't know they were going to something wrong, our participation is remote, but if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we approved of it, our responsibility would be really be close, even if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we voted for them for another reason, we would still be responsible in some ways. The standing is that if you know someone is going to do evil and you participate in that in some way, you are responsible. So it's not 'if you vote this way, should you go to confession?' The question is, 'if you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?' Now, if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes. There's a more sophisticated thing here: it's not so crude. The reason I want to stress that is because it is not like bishops are issuing edicts about who should vote for whom. It's issuing statements about how a Catholic forms her conscience, or his conscience and remote material cooperation or proximate material cooperation is cooperation, and it's important for Catholics to know that, to be sophisticated in their judgments.

It's about the appropriateness of involvement, on part of individual Catholics and on part of the Church community. And the importance of forming one's conscience intelligently and in an involved fashion on the major moral issues of the day. Now, you know, it is true that the Church sees abortion as the foundational issue of our time. It is. There is no way around it. There is nothing more foundational than the right to life.

You know some moral issues, all moral issues are moral issues, and it's good to be on the right side of them all the time, but some are dependent on the basic principles of human life. The dignity of human life. You never violate it. Whether it's the creation of embryos for embryonic stem cell research or abortion, are violations of the dignity of human beings, from our perspective. And you can never justify it. You can sometimes justify going to war. You may think that the Iraq war is horrible, but there may be sometimes when you can justify [going to war]. It doesn't have the same moral weight. And, it's not calculating 40 million abortions against 40,000 deaths in Iraq. That's not how you do the calculus. The calculus is on the intrinsic act itself. You know, and abortion is never, ever, ever right. And so to elect someone who has no respect for unborn human life or has a--what kind of respect?--a kind of respect that is wobbly; it doesn't make any sense. Why would you trust someone with your life, if that person is willing to let unborn babies die?

I think Catholics have to grapple with the fact that their moral positions impact their relationship with the Church. And they haven't often thought of that, you know? 'I know abortion is wrong, but if I vote for abortion, that doesn't have any impact on me. Well the Church says, 'Like heck it doesn't. It means you're not a Catholic and you shouldn't receive communion, if you are in favor of abortion.' They don't think they connect. And, now that some people have been making a very clear connection between the position and one's relationship to the Church, people have gotten angry, they've gotten nervous, they've gotten mad, they've threatened to take their money away, they've threatened to join other churches.

Leo XIII--Wealth and Poverty

These [social] teachings [of the Church] could diminish the distance that pride is pleased to maintain between the rich and the poor, but simple friendship is still too little. If we obey Christianity’s precepts, union will be brought about through fraternal love. On both sides, people will know and understand that absolutely all human beings have come forth from God, their common father; that God is their common and only goal, and that God alone is able to communicate perfect and absolute happiness to angels and to human beings. In addition, all have been redeemed by Jesus Christ and restored by him to their dignity as children of God, and thus a true bond of fraternity unites them, whether this be among themselves or to Christ their Lord, who is “the first-born of many brothers.” (Rom 8:29) Finally, they will know that all the goods of nature, all the treasures of grace belong in common and indiscriminately to the whole human race, and that only those who are unworthy will be disinherited of the heavenly goods. “If you are children, you are heirs as well: heirs of God, heirs with Christ.” (Rom 8:17)

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 21

Creators and creations

Do we remember Hamlet because of Shakespeare or Shakespeare because of Hamlet? Without the characters he created, Shakespeare would be one more impresario in the long and glorious history of English theater. Therefore, who is the greater being: Hamlet or Shakespeare? Hamlet continues to this day to give Shakespeare life and relevance. And for his part, Shakespeare has given us Hamlet and others who reveal not only their maker's amazing thoughts, but who reveal to us the universe within ourselves. Has Shakespeare made him or conjured him? What was Shakespeare's relationship with this character? Was he changed by the encounter?

This is not to single out Shakespeare. Other notable artists have done likewise. Plato gave us the very troubling Socrates. The anonymous authors and editors of the great story traditions that are quilted together in the Jewish Scriptures give us a very extraordinary G*d. At the very least, isn't it fair to raise as an ambiguity, purely on naturalistic terms, who makes whom? How were these storytellers and their faithful listening community, who would hold dear the stories, changed by the character of G*d?

Deus Caritas Est

Some thoughts about this new document, upon a first, fast reading:

The reasoning and the language are clear and simple. John Paul's works always seemed to have a rich abstruseness and density of reasoning that made one take them in small bites in order to get the gist. Benedict's work so far is much more in the "Latin" or "Roman" way of thinking--logical, gradually building, aimed more evidently at communication rather than meditation. To me this is the most evident contrast between the current pontiff and his predecessor, visible in his shorter messages and now in the encyclical letter.

Benedict seems to have a love for the Classical world and its wisdom. This reflects the sense of many of the Church Fathers that the core of Classical philosophy was the second way by which the world was prepared to receive the Christian message. The way of reason has a universal appeal that may prove (once again, we may hope) to be an effective outreach to the world. No one can say it's too obscure, too "Catholic" (in a pejorative sense, as a sort of closed club whose thinking doesn't compel belief from the secular minds out there). Is it St. Justin Martyr who said that Christianity is "the true philosophy"?

He really boils the heart of the Gospel down to a kernel of belief: "God is love." The opening paragraphs are breathtaking in their directness.

The paragraphs on the Church's duties of love toward the world, love built on justice, emphasize direct action and help. It's not the Church's duty to wait until the government does something to help the poor, suffering and hurt. The Church doesn't exist to build a "utopia" of material good, but rather to help the poor, starting with the poorest. Government's job is to create the conditions where these works of justice may flourish. The Church's political theory is to be the model of love and the first to get its hands busy with the works of love. All else follows, including political advocacy. I think Pope John Paul, Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin would concur. And as the saints' lives testify, this work itself is plenty controversial.

A second dialogue on Iraq

(Peg and Al are at the fancy-coffee shop on a Saturday evening.)

Al: So what brings you out for coffee?

Peg: C.J. and I were supposed to see a film, but there was something on C-SPAN he just couldn't miss. I thought I'd do some Christmas shopping and get a coffee.

Al: Did you find anything worth buying?

Peg: A couple of things for my folks, but there wasn't anything that really thrilled me. A lot of this year's gift-type things are recycled from last year, I think. How are you, Al?

Al: I'm irritated.

Peg: That's news? You're always cranky about something.

Al: Well, it's about---

Peg: Let me guess. I read the paper this morning. It's all the bickering back and forth in Congress about Iraq and how soon we should get out. The Senate scolded the President about not reporting to them regularly, and the House debated a bill to set a timetable for getting out.

Al: Yup, that's the newspaper version, for sure.

Peg: I shouldn't repeat what I read in the paper?

Al: No, of course not. You have to read between the lines. What they tell you is one-sided and incomplete. They have this compulsion to put everything in terms of a controversy.

Peg: The last time I looked at the Constitution, Al, the Congress did have the power to declare war and oversee spending on it.

Al: You're right. The part we overlook is that they do supervise the conduct of the war. The executive branch really can't hide anything, and reports continuously to a number of committees. Don Rumsfeld said last weekend that the Defense Department alone had filed 900 reports to Congress since the fighting began.

Peg: If that's true, then why does the Senate want more information?

Al: Rummy gave us a clue: "I hope someone's reading them," he said.

Peg: That would imply that he thinks their minds are made up, and that their vote wasn't about information and oversight.

Al: That's putting it nicely. It was about politics. The Senate wound up passing a bill that gave them information that they already had access to. They passed it for the sake of having regular opportunities to debate and second-guess. That way, the opponents can complain more often.

Peg: But the House debated a bill, too, didn't they?

Al: That's the problem--endless debate without any purpose. They debated a bill to set a quick timetable for removing the troops from Iraq. It never had any chance at passing and was defeated 403 to 3. The sponsors didn't even vote for it.

Peg: What you're saying is that it was not introduced for a sincere purpose--only to create a controversy.

Al: The majority figured out that the House's time was being wasted and called for a quick vote. They saw through it. Only three congresspersons thought it was prudent to vote for a quick, arbitrary end to the war.

Peg: But it sounded for a while, with the polls and all, like people are really turning against the war.

Al: Apparently not, according to those whose congressional careers depend on getting that sort of thing right. That's empirical.

Peg: So you don't really believe opinions about Iraq are changing?

Al: I really don't. That doesn't mean folks aren't having their doubts. War is ugly and uncertain, so doubts are natural. The anti-war senators and representatives are trying to turn those doubts into a movement. But, based on those two votes last week, it's pure politics.

Peg: So, even though the anti-war group knew their bills didn't change anything, they pursued them anyway--because they might get traction and cause more doubt with the voters?

Al: I think so. And the passage of that compromise bill in the Senate, for the sake of defeating a radical, end-the-war-now law, gave them a small victory and some credibility.

Peg: But I'm not sure how you can be so pro-war, Al. It just seems like the whole business isn't going well--assuming we should be in Iraq in the first place!

Al: Why do you think we shouldn't be there?

Peg: I knew you'd ask me that.

Al: But that's really the important part, isn't it?

Peg: It is. Anyone can quibble about tactics and such. I'm not clear about why we're there. I don't know that anyone else might be, either, considering all the stories that were put out at the time.

Al: "Stories" or "reasons"?

Peg: Doesn't that depend on your point of view?

Al: No I think it's important to know, and demonstrable, whether the nation went to war based on "reasons" or "stories".

Peg: What you're saying is that even you are open to the possibility that some false pretenses were put forward to make the case for war?

Al: Sure, but the less so, the more I read.

Peg: Huh?

Al: I think I gave the evidence a good going-over when the UN debates were going on. I still try to read what the anti-war folks are saying, too. The more I read, the less convinced I am, if I ever was, that they have a good argument on the facts. But, I'm always open to new information.

Peg: What about the WMDs? The government's own investigation said they didn't exist.

Al: Are you sure that's what it said?

Peg: Pretty sure. That's what the senators are saying, some of them.

Al: I didn't read the whole Kay report. I did read the fine print of the summaries that were published. That commission didn't say "didn't exist" and they didn't say "no evidence" in such absolute ways. Mr. Kay said that his investigators did not find caches of ready-to-use WMDs, and that, in spite of efforts by Saddam Hussein's government to lead its neighbors to think there were WMDs, Iraq had not successfully rebuilt their whole weapons program after the first Gulf War.

Peg: That's convincing to me.

Al: Convincing of what?--I just have to ask.

Peg: I'd say convincing that this is a "story" and not a "reason".

Al: Let's follow a line of reasoning here. Bear with me.

Peg: O.K.--

Al: Did Iraq ever have WMDs?

Peg: Sure--they used nerve gas against Iran's armies in the early 80's. They used them later against Kurdish and, I think, Shi'ite villages. They wanted to teach a lesson about dissent.

Al: That's why the UN sent in investigators and monitors after the Gulf War--to seal and destroy whatever chemical stocks they could find.

Peg: Right.

Al: And basically they tried to do the same thing to Iraq's nuclear program--right?

Peg: They wanted to, but didn't the Israelis help them out with that?

Al: Yeah, they blew up a big reactor that everyone thought was a weapons factory. That was actually earlier, in 1981, at a place called Osirak. But its existence would certainly testify to Iraq's intentions, even over a long period of time. After the Gulf War the UN did find an active nuclear weapons program, with hundreds of scientists working on it and a whole security corps dedicated to keeping it hidden. The UN kept inspection teams in Iraq until they were expelled in 1998. Until that time they documented a whole series of evasions and violations. The UN had already begun issuing its famous series of 17 resolutions demanding that Iraq comply with its international agreements on WMDs. That's all on the UN record.

Peg: Isn't that ancient history? The Iraq war was started in 2003.

Al: No; the UN inspectors were ordered back in 2000, then again in 2002.

Peg: And--?

Al: It was a cat-and-mouse game. The last inspectors said basically what the United States group reaffirmed in 2004: that Iraq had not manufactured a workable nuclear weapon, but that it had held on to the capability of producing one from existing materials and equipment, and an active interest in continuing such a program. The government of Saddam Hussein also had worked very hard to keep the UN inspectors away from their scientists.

Peg: So it wasn't exactly "no WMDs".

Al: Correct. The fact is that Iraq's "trajectory" or behavior pattern on this never changed--even going back twenty years. The UN said this, and so did the world's other security and intelligence services. This was what was reported to the UN during the Security Council debates and to Americans on the nightly news reports.

Peg: Let's see what might be plausible here. Saddam Hussein didn't have and didn't need and actual nuclear bomb, but he kept the equipment, parts and technology around in some way, complete or otherwise. Where is all this stuff now?

Al: Some items, we think, disappeared in the chaos of the war. A great deal is in Iraq under American military seizure. The forces have shipped the most dangerous materials to secure military weapons bases in the US for safekeeping. We know that technology, equipment and scientists disappeared in 2002 while the UN was still debating what to do and playing word games with Iraqi diplomats over inspections.

Peg: Are you saying that the Security Council debates served as a "cover" to delay actions by the community of nations that would confront Iraq with the real evidence? Deliberately?

Al: I don't think we know how deliberate, but everyone now knows that there was a level of real corruption and collaboration between Saddam Hussein and people in authority at the UN.

Peg: That's been all over the news. So, O.K., maybe I'll grant you the WMD argument by a nose, but I'll still go read some more. But look, isn't all this just about oil, money and power in that part of the world?

Al: I'd have to challenge that, because it's become one of those "blanket" statements that people fall back on when other things fail. As objective factors, oil, money and power are very important, but I don't think the facts would support any sort of conspiracy theory about this--it's also a distraction from the realities we should be considering.

Peg: I think a lot of people today do say that. They think more along the lines of a few shadowy individuals acting to enhance their own positions. That wouldn't be good for anyone.

Al: We probably do have a way to get to the bigger picture here, though, without that unprovable and improbable speculation. Let's assume for a minute that the situation in Iraq might be better after this current hostility subsides, at least to a degree, and that American military forces are able to withdraw to basic protection and peace-keeping duties in the Middle East. Do you think this scenario is plausible?

Peg: Iraq won't ever be utopia. I do think a relatively stable situation can be created there, even with what has gone on. Even if some nasty people from Al Qaeda are still there, if you could get some agreement with Iran and Syria to keep out, and encourage the factions in Iraq to restrain themselves, then it has to be better than under Saddam Hussein.

Al: Better for whom?

Peg: It would be safer for all the other countries in the region, if those conditions could be put in place.

Al: I think that's the American intention--to create that sort of a situation. I'd say it's probably safer already, in most areas of Iraq. There are big elections coming up under their new constitution. The news says people are looking forward to voting, and even the Sunnis have proposed candidates in their areas. They've given up the idea of boycotting elections. There are little noises in the Muslim world that are questioning whether this use of violent anarchy to accomplish social goals is a good thing.

Peg: There is also one less influential tyrant to start mischief.

Al: I don't think we can underestimate that, either. I also don't think we can underestimate the seizing of whatever volume of WMD materials we've managed to get hold of, but history will have to bear that out.

Peg: So, what's the progress, then, really?

Al: More stability. The greater isolation of Iran and Syria as long as they support terrorism. The general security of the flow of Mid-East oil, which helps the world's economy whatever you may think about the longer-term environmental issues. The Palestinians are having to settle their own leadership issues. This allows Israel to pull back from Gaza and work out a deal on the West Bank.

Peg: So you're an optimist.

Al: I think the risks of the forced regime change in Iraq were enormous. They may still be. It's more of a political situation now. I think security issues might begin to take a back seat.

Peg: But the troops aren't out.

Al: You're right. We know they'll be coming home in some numbers in the coming year. But some will remain in or near Iraq in secure, permanent installations to keep an eye on things.

Peg: They might never be out.

Al: I won't say "never". We're just now thinking about closing bases in Germany--something the Germans have mixed feelings about. But that situation has changed since the early 90's and the days of the Soviet Union. Geopolitically, did that presence make a difference?

Peg: Of course it did.

Al: I rest my case. I think the bigger picture is what we need to look at.

Peg: So we live in a world where the use of military force is still a reality. That's pretty cynical.

Al: I don't think so. That's a whole other level of thinking. But I think I need to get home and start getting ready for the end of the semester.

Peg: Sounds good--I'm tired from shopping, and thinking. See you later.

First dialogue on education

(Peg and Al again. Recall that they are teachers at a private high school. Al teaches Math and Peg, Government. It's Monday afternoon, classes over for the day. Peg enters the lounge to find Al glaring at the coffee maker.)


Peg: Hello, Al. How was your day? --Uh, no coffee?

Al: No coffee in the pot; no coffee in the cabinet; no coffee in the storage closet. How can I work if there's no coffee? There's not even a decent coffee shop in the neighborhood--not even a bad coffee place around. Inhuman conditions; good grief!

Peg: Whoa, partner, don't lose your grip. I just saw Juliet and Roxie rolling the coffee supplies down to the cafeteria. I guess they’re setting up for that reception tonight. Let me just step over there and borrow some coffee back. I’d like a fresh cup, too.

Al: You don’t have to do that.

Peg: I’ll be right back, Al.

(A few minutes pass. Peg returns, makes fresh coffee.)

Al: That’s good coffee--thanks!

Peg: No problem.

Al: I’m just going to sit for a few minutes to let today’s case of nerves calm down.

Peg: I know. Monday’s a bear. The weekend resets your tempo to baseline, and Monday brings back the thrills, chills and frustration. That’s teaching.

Al: Between the students, the administration, the grading and our ever-cheery compatriots, we’re outnumbered.

Peg: But would you do anything different?

Al: I wouldn’t

Peg: I get a yen to try something else every so often. I took the law school exam about ten years ago, but didn’t follow through with any applications. I really didn’t want to make a career change, just a money change, and for me it would have taken too much time and energy to be worth it.

Al: I know you like issues and controversies. You would probably make an excellent plaintiff’s attorney or public interest advocate. But, you’re a great teacher, too.

Peg: Thanks! There are some good days. Every time I start thinking I haven’t found my vocation yet, something comes along to remind me that I should do what I’m doing now. Guess you’re it, this time.

Al: Well, I have my days, too. Not that I’d want to do something other than teach, but I do wonder what good I’m doing after thirty years.

Peg: We’re not setting the world on fire, that’s for sure. The students aren’t motivated.

Al: There are two questions I keep asking my students: Why do you get up in the morning? and Why do you--or your parents--think you should be showing up at our doors and in our classrooms every day?

Peg: How do they answer?

Al: Mainly they give me a confused look. I don’t think they have an answer.

Peg: Ouch.

Al: Once in a while a brave soul will look at me and say “It’s because I want something better than a boring, routine job.” Or, “I don’t want to spend my life on a hot roof like my cousins have to do.”

Peg: Sounds like as good a reason to go to school as any other.

Al: Well, it’s a start. And at least it proves there are some moral absolutes, even if they’re negatives. Most people do share those same sentiments. My question, though, is why it’s so hard to discover and then to commit yourself to some sort of a positive reason why you should be getting an education.

Peg: Maybe when you’re young you don’t have the readiness to find something to really pursue. Did you have some really definite ambitions when you were in high school?

Al: No, but I was sort of a contrarian. Whatever I thought most of my peers wanted to do, I would choose something radically opposite. But as to whether I really ever set my sights on a definite career and began to take real steps, no such thing. I was busy reading. What about you?

Peg: I was pretty typical. Mom and dad had their business; I think they tried to steer me in that direction. I had in mind that other things might be cooler: my sports, and whatever clubs I was in at the moment. I thought about a business career and gave law or politics a glance now and then.

Al: These things don’t really take a final shape until we actually do them. Even in college I changed majors officially once, and thought about it a couple of other times.

Peg: Me, too. My pre-law studies eventually became a degree in government and history with a teaching certificate attached, just in case. Now I can talk about public and political things all day, and have job security.

Al: That’s something that people in the political world don’t have, that’s for sure.

Peg: How did you wind up teaching Math? Don’t you have degrees in philosophy?

Al: It was an accident. When I graduated, I got hired as an emergency Math fill-in because I had taken enough courses in math and logic to satisfy somebody’s requirements. You know how hard it is to find Math people. They’re all in engineering, business, economics. I liked teaching, so I went back and finished the certification. But as you know I’ve taught other things, too. This and my night classes keep me fed and supplied with reading.

Peg: I’d rather keep up my garden than be a bookworm.

Al: Now you’re not going to tell me you never read. We’ve had too many good conversations for you to convince me you’re one of those brain-dead adults.

Peg: You’re right. I read the paper, a couple of good, serious magazines, lots of novels and some of the books on politics and history that show up as best-sellers. I guess nowadays I should read more from the Internet, too, since that’s where all the action seems to be. But I certainly don’t read all that philosophy stuff and literature that you read.

Al: I don’t know that many people do any more. I’m still the odd one in the crowd. I am up to speed on the Internet, though. In fact, I’ll tell you a secret: I have a blog.

Peg: Really? What do you put there--joke of the day?

Al: Once in a while the world gets a taste of my wry, ironic humor. Mainly there are a couple of things I use it for, when I have time. I store there some of the better thoughts that I happen across in my reading. Then I try to work out verbally some of the ideas I have about a couple of the topics I like to read about. Maybe eventually I’ll try to collect some of that randomness into something worth publishing. One thing leads to another, I hope.

Peg: Well I wish more adults would entertain an occasional literate thought--especially in and around our community..

Al: I’m a basic fatalist about that. For many of us, a literate thought is foreign territory. I know university professors who are as narrow in their learning as garage mechanics--in fact, the mechanics are more interesting to have a conversation. With my old car, I’m an expert on that. But I guess that’s the thing about educating human beings in society and for society. It’s a slow process that we can’t do alone. The whole culture has to be supportive. The media have to help, but today they only seem to make things stupider. The government’s schools have to improve. And parents have to do their jobs responsibly.

Peg: How do they do that? There are plenty of theories out there.

Al: One thing is for certain: parents have to model one critical value--a reverence for learning.

Peg: Are you sure “reverence” is the right word?

Al: I’m absolutely sure of that. I mean reverence in the exact sense, even with a religious connotation, as if learning is a kind of sacred object. We have to have the attitude that good learning possesses intrinsic value not only for what it provides in the utilitarian sense, but for what it is. Here’s an example: I’m sure you’ve noticed that there are certain of our foreign-born students, who live in traditional-culture families, who seem to have this attitude of a very special respect for learning--and for their teachers, too.

Peg: I sure have. It’s refreshing--makes me really feel like a teacher and not a lion-tamer or baby-sitter.

Al: Have you also noticed how these same students achieve an amazing learning curve in language skills, then quickly begin to surpass the competition in the rest of their acadmics?

Peg: Who wouldn’t notice?

Al: That’s exactly the point. Real learning, not surface knowledge, is about attitude and discipline.

Peg: Isn’t there a quote about character and fate--let’s see...

Al: That would be “A man’s character is his destiny.” Heraclitus said it in the pre-socratic era.

Peg: Thank you, doctor polymath.

Al: Any time--but you do see my point, don’t you?

Peg: I think you’re absolutely right, and I agree. The only thing I’d add would be that it’s not only those foreign students. We’ve got a fair number of other students who really strive to inquire, to learn, to discover.

Al: You’re right. These are the ones we have to support and to continue to push along. We’ve also got to be sure to tell them that we appreciate how they’ve got their heads on straight. And we’ve got to find ways to entice others to join this little community.

Peg: You’re right about that, too. We’ll have to continue this train of thought another time, though. I’ve got to pack my things and get on my way. I’m meeting my lawyer neighbor, C.J., for dinner.

Al: Say hi for me. Tell him not to be a stranger. I want to ask him about Judge Alito’s confirmation and all that.

Peg: Well, do you feel like joining us?

Al: It would be a nice start to the week. I’ll get my things and follow you. See you in a sec.

Important book update for Tuesday night students

9/10/05 UPDATE: I still have the books and will sell them again in class Tuesday evening. Remember that you'll need to pay me by check for $36.10.

The Pojman books are in at the bookstore downtown. Your best bet is to get it there if it's not too inconvenient. I'm not too sure about getting some down to Sugar Land, but working on this. At best, it will be Monday or Tuesday before we get some on our campus, and we're not sure how that money will be handled.

The (Communism of) the Reign of God

From Sigrid Undset, St Catherine of Siena: "This is the communism of the society of the blessed: just as the rewards of the blessed are collected in the treasure-houses of the Church, so that every poor and infirm soul may have a share of this treasure, so in a mysterious way the sins of the faithful impoverish the whole of Christendom. Our generation, which has seen how the horrors of war and the concentration camps have fallen alike on the guilty and on those who by human reckoning were the most guiltless, should find it easier than our forefathers, with their naive believe in personal success as a reward for personal service, to understand the dogma of the Church that we all have our share in the rewards of all the saints and the guilt of all sinners."

John Howard's Comments

During his visit to London last week, Australian PM John Howard field the (tiresome) question about whether the Coalition's presence in Iraq is what has triggered the latest round of terror bombings. He responded with this very clear analysis:


"The first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it has given the game away, to use the venacular, and no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen. Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq? And can I remind you that the 11th of September occured before the operation in Iraq? Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor? Are people by implication suggesting that we shouldn't have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan? When Sergio DeMillo was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplmat, immensely respected for his work in the United Nations, when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that DeMillo had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations adminsitrator in East Timor. Now I don't know the minds of the terrorist. By definition you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts. And the objective facts are as I have cited. The objective fact is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq and indeed all the evidence as distinct from the suppositions suggest to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion, that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder."

Could not have said it better.

From: http://www.hughhewitt.com

Supreme Court Conversation

(As usual, Peg and Al, teachers.)

(Ubiquitous name-brand coffee shop; mid-summer, mid-week, mid-afternoon. Peg walks through with a friend, notices Al reading newspapers and sipping his usual.)

Peg: Hey, Al, don't you think it's warm enough without all that hot coffee?

Al: Coffee is the elixir of life, Peg, hot or not. Besides, I need it to keep me calm while I read this news. Why don't you sit a while. Can I treat?

Peg: That's O.K., we just stopped in for some water. I'll get it. By the way, this is C.J., my neighbor.

CJ: Hi, Al; Peg mentions you regularly.

Al: Really? I'd better behave, then.

Peg: (Returning with bottled water.) So what are you reading those papers for?

Al: I'm trying to get a scope on this Supreme Court nominee. This political stuff just makes me crazy.

Peg: Good grief, CJ's been ranting about it, too.

CJ: No kidding. And the papers have it all wrong, as usual.

Al: I'm glad you said that--I was beginning to think the problem was mine. They really don't understand, do they?

CJ: Nope, not a clue.

Peg: Wait a minute, what am I missing here? I know Justice O'Connor has retired and the President is nominating a judge named Roberts to replace her. The President is picking someone who thinks like he does, and the liberals are going to be upset. What's the problem? It sounds like business as usual.

Al: It's not.

CJ: Al's right. The nomination of a Supreme Court justice has never been the subject of this sort of ideological line-drawing--at least, not until a few years ago.

Al: CJ, you're a retired attorney--is that right? I think that's what Peg told me.

CJ: Well, I guess I'll admit that much.

Al: So why the problems with this nomination?

CJ: That works on a couple of levels. What everyone sees, of course, is the political battle. No one likes being in second place. There's a pretty radical element in the Congress that's unhappy because the voting public seems to be rejecting key points of their message at the polls.

Al: There has been a real shift--I think everyone admits that much.

Peg: But we don't vote for Supreme Court justices.

CJ: That's true, Peg, but over the last 30 years or more, as voters have chosen lots of conservative candidates on the national level, the Supreme Court has kept to a pretty consistent pattern of support for a doctrine of social engineering--I guess, since the early 1960's.

Al: That's a pretty stiff way to put it, but the pattern is there, isn't it?

CJ: You bet. There have been several landmark cases where you can trace the development of a very distinct judicial philosophy. Some of the attorneys I know say that the Court has made itself a sort of "super-legislature".

Peg: Don't justices do what they've always done? When an existing law is challenged on Constitutional grounds, doesn't the Supreme Court just look at the rights given in the Constitution and decide whether that law is consistent with those rights--or not?

CJ: Sorry to burst your balloon on this one, Peg. In the first place, the Constitution is not a document that spells out or anticipates every possible situation that can arise. The founders did create the institutions of a representative republic that served the interests of a government under which the citizens of the states had certain rights and duties. These rights and duties of citizenship were held equally by all citizens but the design was to be rather minimalist in terms of how intrusive that government was allowed to become.

Peg: But of course not every person had access to these rights--the black slaves and women were left out.

CJ: You're right. There's plenty of good historical evidence why they left the slave question out--the fact is that they would not have had a republic at all if they had pursued this question in the 1780's. The new nation would have collapsed over the differences regarding abolition. It nearly did 80 years later, but America was strong enough to survive the Civil War.

Peg: But the children and grandchildren of the slaves didn't get their rights in any general sense until a hundred years later.

CJ: That's a tragedy from which the country still suffers. The courts and the government stepped in several times from the 1940's to the 1960's--the Civil Rights era--to make sure that the political rights of minorities were protected as a matter of federal law.

Al: The women's questions was solved differently, wasn't it?

CJ: That was settled by amending the Constitution; in other words, by a popular vote in the states specifically extending the rights of citizenship to women. It took two generations, but happened in the most definitive way possible.

Al: I think I see what you're getting at. The Constitution allows for its own amendment--its own alteration and adjustment over the years, but this is to happen through the people.

CJ: That's right--and the people can change their minds, as they did with Prohibition.

Peg: Or they can get smarter, as they did with the suffrage question and with the civil rights process. But that doesn't solve our problems with the Supreme Court, does it?

CJ: No, it doesn't. In the Griswold case, around 1965, the Court concurred with Justice Douglas describing something called "a penumbra issuing from an emanation" of the rights in the Bill of Rights. In other words, it suggested setting up a whole new standard for describing the rights of citizens. A lot of people said "What?"

Peg: What does the Constitution say about the job of the Judicial Branch?

CJ: Not much.

Al: You're right--I've got a copy here in my pocket.

Peg: What kind of a nerd keeps the Constitution in his pocket?

Al: The kind who knows his rights--and limitations. Here, read Section Three.

Peg: Well, that's short: only about 10 sentences.

CJ: The Judiciary was created as a third branch of government, but apparently not intended to be the dominant branch--more of a limiter and correcter, whose jurisdiction could, and can still, be limited and specified by the Congress and so by the People.

Peg: Wow, I hadn't really considered it that way. I'm stunned.

Al: The founders may have been wise. The Supreme Court has made some great decisions in its history, but it has also been dreadfully wrong at times, necessitating the reversal of its own decisions. That shift of emphasis that CJ talked about is real. The Court's main direction was to rule on the rights related to citizenship itself. Now, it seems that the justices want to protect and expand all kinds of cultural and behavioral privileges. It seems to me that these sorts of things are better off left to votes of the people through their legislatures.

CJ: The more I study, the more I marvel at how wise the founders were. They certainly didn't avoid the basic questions of government itself, but their ideal was that the citizens should not be tyrannized by any branch of government that reaches for a level of social control beyond the necessary minimum, especially on the Federal level.

Peg: But just the other day, some senator was on the news talking about the Constitution being a living tradition, not just a document.

CJ: I know who you're talking about. She was right and she was wrong.

Peg: What do you mean?

CJ: She was right in two ways. First, the people can amend the Constitution at will, since the whole point of our government's existence is the ability and importance of voting. Even the great Court decisions of the Civil Rights era were centered around protecting the ability of citizens to vote and the direct supports for that right. America is all about voting, especially on major issues--which means political process, campaigns, rhetoric, and so on.

Al: Messy, but effective.

CJ: The second way the senator was right was that the whole judicial branch, federal and state, builds on a body of case law that goes back even before the country's founding. But, it's a very careful and subtle process of interpretation, not open to whims and fads--or "penumbras issuing from emanations".

Peg: So the senator was wrong about the role of the Supreme Court, because she implied that it had a kind of legislating job to do.

CJ: Right.

Peg: But it seems unnecessary to be so strict about the role of the Constitution. Why can't the government grow and evolve with the times?

Al: The government can grow, alright, and it has in order to serve the needs, complexities and emergencies of the world. It's up to the Congress and the Executive to do this part, though, and the Constitution provides plenty of freedom to allow that to happen. But it's that word "evolve" that scares me.

Peg: Now you really sound like a conservative.

Al: That's no insult. To me, "evolve" means that the ideals and principles change, and I'm not sure that's a good thing at all, even if I am occasionally inconvenienced by the limitations.

Peg: How do you mean that?

Al: CJ, you can correct me on this. America, as it was envisioned by the founders, meant a pretty specific set of ideals clustered around the basics of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Basic to these were political liberties and political equality--the rights of citizenship. To me, guaranteeing these goods is what is most important. Anything else may well be up to the people, but not necessarily for the courts to dictate.

Peg: But the people wouldn't necessarily vote for things like fewer restrictions on publishing and broadcasting obscene matter, the ability to choose abortion, and so on.

CJ: You're right, Peg, they wouldn't, without some case being made that would convince them these things were right. Realize also, that these are behavioral freedoms, not political rights as such. It's a stretch to include them in the area of political rights. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this is where ideology takes over.

Al: Ideology is fine for the Congress--it's what they're about. It's not what the Supreme Court is about.

Peg: Well, we certainly haven't heard it put that way in the news.

Al: I'm hoping that as Judge Roberts is interviewed by the Judiciary Committee, he'll be able to remind the nation of that. It does look as if that seems to be his position: looking at the objective fact of the Constitution, rather than some 20th-century social ideal, as the source of legal interpretation.

CJ: I agree--but we'll have to listen to the ideologues during that process as well.

Peg: Hmm... I'm going to have to sit and think about all of this when I get home.

CJ: (Checking his watch.) Speaking of which, Peg, we ought to hike on out of here. Good talking with you, Al.

Al: Sure, guys. So long...